Señor Hurtado to Mr. Gresham.
Washington, October 31, 1893. (Received October 31.)
Sir: Instructions which I have received subsequently to the conversation which I had the honor to have with you on last Thursday compel me to again earnestly call your attention to the contents of my note of the 5th instant with a view to reach a solution on the subject, at the earliest possible moment.
The request that the privileges gratuitously granted to the Argentine Republic, Mexico, and other countries, respecting the free importation of hides and coffee into the United States, be declared common to Colombia under the provisions of article 2 of the existing treaty of 1846, was put forth in my note to the State Department of the 25th March, 1892.
The demand was denied on the plea that arrangements looking to reciprocal tariff concessions in favor of articles of American growth and manufacture were then in course of negotiation between the United States and the countries I had named as receiving gratuitous concessions, and that Colombia, by refusing to enter into a similar agreement, debarred herself from the right to claim the same favorable treatment accorded to the countries I had referred to.
My Government did not admit the soundness of this conclusion. They contended that the character of a freely made concession was not altered by the mere expectation of a future and contingent compensation, dependent on the uncertain result of a pending negotiation. They further held that a public treaty is a law unto itself, and that conclusions derived therefrom respecting questions arising under the treaty can not be set aside by arguments and considerations taken from other sources, nor can one of the parties to a discussion claim any conclusion as established when based upon facts which the other party” has no means of looking into and examining in a manner sufficient to ascertain the real worth and validity of the allegation.
The lapse of time has fully confirmed the correctness of the views expressed by my Government. It has since transpired that the negotiations carried on with Mexico and Argentine, however promising they may have appeared at the time, were not productive of any result and have been abandoned without any intention of being resumed.
The plea, therefore, on which was based the refusal to comply with the just demands of my Government has vanished like a shadow, without leaving anything behind for ulterior consideration, while the request itself remains supported by the provision of the treaty in pursuance to which it was preferred without any obstacle or hindrance standing in the way to oppose it save the force of inertia which, I respectfully submit, it is the bounden duty of your Government to forthwith proceed to remove.
The method generally followed by governments in dealing with a case of this kind is to declare that the government legitimately claiming the enjoyment of favors granted to other countries is entitled to equal treatment with the most favored nation, whereby the corresponding treaty provision at once becomes operative. It is not my intention, nor would I venture, to suggest a course to be adopted, under the circumstances, by the Government of the United States. My remarks have only in view to establish this inference: That in the treaty of 1846, between the United States of America and Colombia it was intended that an equally expeditious and simple method to the one generally [Page 495] followed and above alluded to should be adopted whenever the opportunity might occur, to put in motion the provision of article 2 of the treaty. For, the stipulation provides that grants freely made to third nations by one of the contracting parties shall immediately become common to the other party, which could not be accomplished if a dilatory process in giving effect to the clause were resorted to.
The element of time is an essential condition to the fulfillment of the treaty provision under examination. Delay in rendering this condition effective would in any event constitute an infringement of the treaty. In the case under consideration, the infraction does not limit itself to a mere violation of the text; its disastrous effects on the trade of the two countries, which the treaty was intended to foster and promote, renders the breach repugnant to the spirit of the treaty and the injury it inflicts on Colombian interests imparts to it the character of a tortious act.
I have recently received several letters from merchants engaged in business with Colombia, who concur in stating that the imports of coffee are now less than one-third of the quantity introduced into this country previous to the 15th of March, 1892, when the article was subjected to duty. This estimate is corroborated by other trustworthy sources. The great decrease in the importation of the chief staple shipped from Colombia in payment of American exports has caused the rate (in Colombia) of exchange on the United States to rise to 10 per centum, over and above parity with Europe. This abnormal difference in the exchange represents a loss which falls on the Colombian consumer of American exports; nor can this loss disappear before (and it will disappear immediately after) the removal of the differential duty to which Colombian produce is subjected.
The letters above referred to are from merchants either expecting shipments of coffee from Colombia, or who hold the article in bond, under conditions that will compel them to reship it to other markets, if it can not be introduced free of duty into this country. They address themselves to this legation, in quest of information regarding the early removal of the duty, and complain of the hardships imposed upon them under existing circumstances, which destroy their business, obliging them to part with property the proceeds of which should be applied either to payment of their credits or invested by them in the purchase of merchandise, thus depriving them of profits and commissions that should accrue to them in the course of their business, and otherwise injuring their interests.
I am not in a position to convey to the writers of the letters any positive assurance of immediate relief; but I deem it my duty to earnestly invoke your attention, while submitting to your consideration, that since it can not be denied that whenever under the existing position of things a duty be levied on Colombian coffee or hides, entering the United States, or the same be reexported to avoid the payment thereof; each and every case so occurring involves a treaty violation; measures should at once be taken to prevent, in future, the consummation of the wrongful act.
It is not, Mr. Secretary, without regret and the fear of being considered importunate that I again address you on a subject that has been sufficiently discussed to leave no room for doubt concerning it, and to which you have, but lately, verbally assured me that you would give your earliest possible attention.
But I could not do otherwise in view of recent instructions; nor, I venture to hope, will the urgency manifested by my Government be looked [Page 496] upon as unreasonable, when it be considered that their request for compliance with an obvious treaty stipulation has been kept pending for a period of over nineteen months without proper grounds to justify so protracted a delay; The fact should not be lost sight of that as time passes the wrong complained of is repeated, and its evil effects on our commerce are intensified. It is not, therefore, a remedy for the past that I am at present recommended to seek; my endeavors are directed to obtain a preventive for the future. It is only on the last point that immediate action is asked for; and my Government, relying on the high sense of justice of that of the United States, trusts that, although their just demands have hitherto remained virtually unheeded, they will now no longer be disregarded.
Accept, etc.,